City Council adopts moot ordinance
From the Woodland Record:
In an exercise of redundancy Tuesday evening, Woodland City Council parlayed their urgency moratorium of medical marijuana dispensaries into a mere stamp of approval on existing state and federal laws. In a unanimous decision (including one vote in absentia) council adopted an ordinance aimed at avoiding litigation pertaining to marijuana and prohibiting its sale without any specific mention of marijuana, cannabis, dispensary, collective or cooperative.
The new ordinance, which is actually amendments to chapters 13 and 25 of the municipal code, was a back-door (or end-around) proposal concocted by staff (with the help of a contracted attorney) and recommended by the Planning Commission on November 5.
The new policy boils down to a directive for land use planners to not allow illegal businesses - a moot point considering state and federal laws are already in place for that. And since there is no specific mention of medical marijuana dispensaries in the new code, the urgency ordinance is still set to expire on October 6, 2010.
Read more at WoodlandRecord.com.
Read about the "Prohibition of Businesses and Uses Prohibited by State and Federal Law."
Posts
11 comments:
I especially like the response given by our (on top of things) Mayor, Skip Davies. In response to the question Bobby asked during his three minutes, if council had recieved his letter earlier in the day. Mayor Davies said with a big grin on his face, "I got your letter, read it, but didn't understand it".
Bobby sent many e-mail copies out. I recieved the same letter sent to City Council and its legal staff. It was very clear what the letter said. I had no problem understanding the content.
I guess it is asking too much for our City Council and Mayor to understand fully and completely an issue BEFORE they vote on it, and open the City to a HUGE lawsuit!
I repeat... Idiots.
Did anyone else notice how Marty could not even look forward to the gallery or camera when this item was in front of her?
I also noticed the lack of mention of the "M" word. during this agenda item. If you read the DD you would have no clue what agenda item 13 was even about. Do you think they were directed by legal council not to make it clear what this item was about?
When I read the Daily Democrat article last week I thought we might actually be able to get our medication legally in Woodland.
It is legal in the state. I am a senior and disabled and never smoked cigarettes or this stuff or done any other illegal drugs in my life. I have had many major medical problems. I have a cabinet full of prescription drugs, which I do not like to take due to the negative side effects. Some of these are major side effects and it is almost not worth taking the prescription. These prescriptions can also be addictive.
My doctor recommended this as an alternative to try and an aid to the osteo artheritis and other conditions that are crippling my body and deteriorating my bones.
It took up a lot of nerve to get the card and even more to go into a place to purchase it. I bought the pills and it is the first time in years the nerves in my hands did not ache or tremble. I have had to deal with this daily and it wakes me up at night. It works and I have not experienced any side effects other than an increased appetite.
I am not some druggie, I am a law abiding citizen and card carrying Republican.
There is absolutely no way I would ever buy this product not at a licensed facility or illegally.
SO by the City Council's ruling I must continue to purchase in another city. This means I must spend my tax dollars in Sacramento. Because I am not thrilled with this arrangement, I will also buy my gas and groceries while in Sac at the Super Walmart so my tax dollars benefit the City that allows me to get my medicine legally.
I do understand and appreciate the Counsels hesitation. Others in this situation are probably turning toward obtaining it illegally and thus promoting gangs and other illegal drugs. To the counsel I would say, licensing would help control this and the City could probably use the tax revenue; as well.
Thank you for allowing me to post this.
Anon 8:10 wrote this "It is legal in the state."
I happen to agree with this statement too. The wording of the ordinance, as I understand, is to prohibit "illegal" businesses in Woodland.
If the State (voters) says it is legal then what is Woodland doing with this prohibition???
Prop 215 says "affordable access". Doesn't that mean selling this medicine at a location?
What is Woodland doing to implement this wording???
I have read Bobby's ordinance, it provides "affordable" with a price cap. His ordinance also provides for "access". His ordinance does not mention a dispensory. If it is a dispensory that Woodland leaders are uncomfortable with, then why not adopt Bobby's ordinance?
Sounds to me like the city just wants to sweep this issue under the rug, and hope it goes away. How chicken $&@* can they be? Seems to me, we hired these folks to do work for "We the People", refusing to do the work should be grounds for dismissal!
I agree that medical marijuana (MM) clearly has a place in medicine. The problem is there are doctors(I use the term loosely)that advertise in the Thrifty Nickle as "The Pot Doc" and will give a perscription over the phone. I have met MANY young people with their MM card because they have a "sore shoulder", "my knee hurts" and my favorite "I have a corn on my foot that causes anxiety". Give me a break. They won't give you vicodine for a sore shoulder.
My grandfather died many years ago from cancer. It was horrible. A family member supplied him with marijuana. It really eased the final few months. That is why I believe it has a place but there are doctors out there giving the cards to people who want to use it as a recreational drug. I can't agree with that. I would be very supportive of a dispensary in Woodland if the laws were stricter and there were no Pot Docs.
Right now, the only people providing these MM recommendations ARE "pot docs".
The way prop 215 is written, it is entirely up to the doctor to make the suggestion to use MM.
Alcohol and tobacco are strictly regulated and taxed. Does diversion happen with minors? I am sure. Will diversion happen with the youth and a MM card in a family? You bet. I have commented before, if the people who want to get this medicine are allowed, then ONLY the people who want it will get it, right?
The law has passed over a dozen years ago. If prop 215 were voted on today, over 80% would support it now.
It is not the job of our city council to decide if they like prop 215. It is legal and the people have spoken. It is up to those boys and girl to figure out how to implement the LAW! This prohibition keeps patients from having safe, affordable access to their medicine. Sending patients outside Woodland to get their medicine, or having them support the local gangs to get MM is irresponsible and down right dangerous.
The ordinance restricts ALL businesses that operate if they are illegal under state or federal law. Sounds like a sound practice to me and it has already been upheld by the courts. Mr. Harris can sue but the courts will just toss it. Again, this ordinance has already been upheld.
Anyway - I do not want my city allowing any business to do illegal acts whether they be illegal under state or federal law.
Possession of marijuana is still a federal crime. Talk to your congressman if you have issues.
Why do you need an ordinance for something that's already illegal?
Prop 215 made the use of marijuana LEGAL. Obama (Federal) says that States that have marijuana LEGALLY on their books, would not be subject to the Feds.
4:03 PM, Please elaborate with ANY case where this ordinance has been brought before the courts. That's right IT HASN'T! Stop spreading alleged information. Mr. Harris will be the FIRST to challenge this. It will effectively stop the lawyers from breaking the law, as they see fit. They are just doing the bidding of the big "brotherhood", if you catch my drift.
I also challenge anon 4:03 to provide even ONE case where a Federal agent (not a congressman, they are not federal agents either), has gone after a legal patient in possesion of Constitutionally accessable MM. That's right again, it has NOT happened!
This ordinance accomplishes NOTHING. Absolutely legal patients will still have to get their medicine from questionable sources or travel outside Woodland.
4:03 is on the city council
Oh, that makes sense, no wonder 4:03 didn't know what they were talking about.
Post a Comment